We did something a little unusual for this week: a crossover episode. We sat down with Susannah Black Roberts and Peter Mommsen—the hosts of Ploughcast, from Plough Quarterly, a Christian magazine of ideas and culture—for a conversation about the "post-liberal" movement as well as broader questions of the "common good" (does it exist?).  All four of us are coming from vastly different perspectives and backgrounds, and that came out in our spirited conversation.Our conversation about the common good led to deep questions about the nature of politics and law. What are the practical implications of saying, as Martin Luther King did, that "an unjust law is no law at all?" If all humans have souls (even Damir) what does that mean about how we should organize political communities? And how can citizens with fundamental differences be reconciled?We also discussed the recently released National Conservative Statement of Principles: a manifesto signed by many leaders of the post-liberal right. All four of us had significant disagreements with the Statement—but for different reasons. Will its advocacy for a more robust role for Christianity in public life crowd out religious minorities, as Shadi notes? Susannah, as a self-identified Christian post-liberal herself, goes further, wondering if a Christian conception of the good can even be the foundation for an American political movement.We also talked about how Christian ideas of justice cohere—or don't—with liberalism. Damir makes a bold claim: articulating a "common good" can't be done without reference to religious principles, and anyone claiming otherwise is deluding themselves. Needless to say, everyone else on the podcast disagrees (the word "Satanic" comes up).  Required Reading:- The National Conservative Statement of Principles.- The open letter responding to the National Conservative Statement of Principles (The European Conservative).- “Our Post-Liberal Moment,” by Susannah Black Roberts (The Spectator World).- Why Liberalism Failed, by Patrick Deneen (Amazon).- The AP’s recent report on Canada’s euthanasia policies (The Associated Press). This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit wisdomofcrowds.live/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit wisdomofcrowds.live Just as it has a past, liberalism has a future. The only question is whether this future will be compelling enough for those who have lost faith. We have our doubts. Which is why we wanted to talk to Francis Fukuyama, author of The End of History and the Last Man and perhaps the foremost thinker on the development of modern political order. In his new book, Liberalism and Its Discontents, Fukuyama mounts a comprehensive and stirring defense of the liberal idea. But is it enough? We started by discussing Donald Trump—and other possible threats from the GOP to liberalism. Liberalism hasn't necessarily failed, but it has weakened. How and why did this happen? Is liberalism too "thin" to serve as the bedrock of American identity? Fukuyama argues that modern liberalism has become deformed and is no longer liberal. What would it mean to return to "classical liberalism" and is it even possible? In Part 2 of the conversation (available here for subscribers), Shadi questioned Fukuyama on whether ostensibly liberal states do in fact promote their own particular conception of the Good. For example, can state-enforced secularism, like France's, be reasonably considered liberal? Damir raises the point that the universalist assumptions behind liberalism may simply not be workable in a large, diverse, societies. Finally, we talk about the specific ways in which rising illiberalism could be beaten back. Fukuyama believes that the only way to defeat right-wing illiberalism is to defeat it decisively at the polls, through the Democratic Party moving towards the center and ditching its "woke" wing. In the long term, however, Fukuyama is optimistic about liberalism's prospects, and the chances for "partisans of human freedom" to succeed. Required Reading: “Paths to Depolarization,” by Francis Fukuyama (Persuasion). Liberalism and Its Discontents, by Francis Fukuyama (Amazon). The End of History and the Last Man, by Francis Fukuyama (Amazon). Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy, by Francis Fukuyama (Amazon). The Transformation of Title IX: Regulating Gender Equality in Education, by R. Shep Melnick (Amazon). The Inheritors: An Intimate Portrait of South Africa’s Racial Reckoning, by Eve Fairbanks (Amazon).

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit wisdomofcrowds.live This week's episode features one of Twitter's more controversial figures: Jason Stanley, a professor of philosophy at Yale and author of How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them. In true Wisdom of Crowds fashion, we wanted a more measured and wide-ranging exchange of views than Twitter could provide, so we invited Stanley onto the podcast to discuss Trumpism and the Republican Party, the use of the word "fascism," and the dangers of an emerging fascist international. While there were significant disagreements, our desire for more open and honest dialogue was richly rewarded. Stanley believes that the fascist mode of politics—a precursor to actual fascism—takes American form in Donald Trump and today's GOP. To what extent is Trumpism "legitimate"? Should federal prosecutors do all in their power put Trump away even if that imperils the legitimacy of our democracy? Under what conditions should a political party be banned for anti-democratic activity in the United States? In Part 2 (available here for subscribers), we asked whether Stanley's definition of fascism included things that many would merely consider illiberal. How does diagnosing fascism work in Europe, where almost every country's notion of belonging is at least partly tied to ethnic origin? Are modern notions of citizenship compatible with a non-fascist political philosophy? We also asked Stanley some more personal questions to close out the episode. Does he see his combative Twitter activity as separate from his academic work and his writing? What is the role of philosophers in the public sphere, and how would he like to be remembered in 200 years (or 50)? Required Reading: How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them, by Jason Stanley (Amazon). How Propaganda Works, by Jason Stanley (Amazon). Jason’s 2015 article, “Democracy and the Demagogue,” where he describes the source of Trump’s appeal (The New York Times). “American Fascism?” by Jason Stanley (El Pais). “America is now in fascism’s legal phase,” by Jason Stanley (The Guardian). The Newsweek story about Sam Harris’ controversial interview (Newsweek). Emile: On Education, by Jean-Jacques Rosseau (Amazon).

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit wisdomofcrowds.liveThe FBI's surprise "raid" on Donald Trump's residence in Mar-a-Lago this week has been hailed in some quarters as a triumph for the rule of law, and seen in others as signs of a slide into banana-republic status. We invited Jason Willick, a Washington Post columnist who writes on legal issues, to sit down with us and discuss the deeper implications of the event.True to the Crowd's ethos, we focused on fundamental issues. Jason argued that the polarized reactions to the raid show the difficulty of having federal-level law enforcement in an increasingly divided political climate. Shadi and Damir went back on forth on the question of justice: should law enforcement be entirely impartial, or must prosecutors exercise discretion based on the political context? Does one side bear more blame for our current spiral of mistrust and polarization, or is the problem systemic?In the subscriber-only part of the conversation, things got a little heated, as we debated what might restore Americans' belief in democracy. Shadi went (in his own words) "unplugged," talking about his hopes for restoring democratic values. Might a South-Africa-style "truth and reconciliation" commission be appropriate? Damir is skeptical.And finally, the three conclude with a discussion of whether America can pull out of the spiral. Shadi believes that we need a recovery of civic virtue. Damir thinks the national culture is no longer able to sustain democratic values. And Jason raises the point that full scale democratic backsliding is unlikely, given the size of our country. Ultimately, the choice to reject the polarization cycle will be up to voters– a conclusion both optimistic and pessimistic.Required Reading:- "An Informer Told the FBI What Docs Trump Was Hiding, and Where," by William H. Arkin (Newsweek).- Bill Barr's speech at Hillsdale College.- "The Problem of Donald Trump Didn't Start with Donald Trump," by Damir (Gen, on Medium).- Jason Tweeting about the Espionage Act.- Florida Governor Ron DeSantis Tweeting about the American "regime."- "Is Trump Crazy— or calculating? His opponents have to decide," by Jason (The Washington Post).

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit wisdomofcrowds.liveWe welcomed a truly important thinker onto the podcast this week. Walter Russell Mead joined us to discuss his latest book The Arc of a Covenant: The United States, Israel, and the Fate of the Jewish People.Many critics of American foreign policy have long pointed to our long-standing relationship with Israel as proof of the power of the "Israel Lobby" to influence American politics. Mead's latest book shows that reality is far more complicated: the struggles of Zionism in the 19th and 20th centuries have deep resonances with America's self-conception as a nation blessed by Providence. We see a little bit of ourselves in Israel, and act accordingly.We then moved on to broader questions. How has the American conception of the "arc of history," and our place in it, changed over time? Have modern Americans really lost faith in the American project to a greater degree than previous generations?In the full conversation (for paying subscribers), we discussed the future of American engagement with the wider world. How much do we need to pursue human rights abroad? And does a foreign policy based on human rights make us stronger (Damir, of course, is skeptical)?Mead offers an answer, drawn from his own belief in "Christian realism." In the closing moments of the episode, we talk about the Biden administration's failures and successes in foreign affairs, as well as the reasons recent Democratic administrations have struggled to achieve their geopolitical aims. And finally, how does Providence figure into our future struggles with a rising China?Required Reading:- Walter Russell Mead's latest book, The Arc of a Covenant: The United States, Israel, and the Fate of the Jewish People (Amazon).- God and Gold: Britain, America, and the Making of the Modern World, and Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World, by Walter Russell Mead (Amazon).- "Democratic Primaries Are Embroiled in Debate Over Support for Israel," by Jonathan Weisman (The New York Times).- Huey Long: A Biography, by T. Harry Williams (Amazon).- All the King's Men, by Robert Penn Warren (Amazon).- The Jungle Grows Back: America and Our Imperiled World, by Robert Kagan (Amazon).

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit wisdomofcrowds.liveThis week, we had writer Nick Burns on the podcast. Nick's recent essay, "Why Live in America?" prompted Shadi to write his Monday Note for July 4th. We delve into the ways America is different than Europe, for good and for ill. Size, geography, culture, dynamism—all these twist and disfigure many European imports when they land on our shores.When educated Americans pine for a more European lifestyle, are they simply reflecting their own class biases? Is the building of high speed rail really a sign of decline? And are democratic values incompatible with the modern university?We then turned to foreign policy. Nick's recent article in the New Statesman questioning the core assumptions of realism was our jumping-off point for a broader discussion of morality in foreign affairs, and the role of the public's sentiments in states' decision-making. Shadi and Damir of course go at it on the question of a values, with Nick caught in between.Is arguing for human rights a universalist claim? And is arguing from the vantage point of neutrality its own kind of moralism? And was the 19th century French reactionary Chateaubriand the world's first neocon?Required Reading:- The Red Scare podcast.- The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy, by Christopher Lasch (Amazon).- "New York's Hipster Wars," by Nick Burns (The New Statesman).- "America's Medieval Universities," by Nick Burns (American Affairs).- "What Realists Get Wrong About Putin," by Nick Burns (The New Statesman).- The Benedict Option: A Strategy for Christians in a Post-Christian Nation, by Rod Dreher (Amazon).- Sam Haselby's Twitter account.- "Unlearning the Language of Wokeness," by Sam Adler-Bell (New York Magazine).

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit wisdomofcrowds.liveWe return to a question that the Crowd has been chewing over for the last month or so: why do things– political systems, regimes, parties– change? Do ideas really change the world? And can individual actions really have any effect on larger systems?Climate change, and whether we think world governments can mend their ways in time to avert the worst of the crisis, begins the discussion. We discuss whether governments will ever be able to cooperate to the extent needed to "solve" climate change (Damir, predictably, is less sanguine) and whether humanity will find some way to muddle through. Have we, as a species, finally run into a Malthusian limit on progress? How much faith should we have in the prospect of progress?We later move into a wider ranging discussion of the role of ideas in world politics, and whether the modern world is heavily influenced by abstract ideas, as authors like Francis Fukuyama would argue. Shadi also talks about his personal effort to get his own ideas across– and hopefully accepted by– to American policymakers, in the face of political systems that seem unbearably sluggish and unresponsive.Finally, in the bonus portion of the episode, available here for subscribers, we use the proliferation of diverse candidates in the Tory leadership race as a springboard into a discussion of democracy. Does the handpicked selection of women and minorities for leadership by party leaders in the United Kingdom showcase the virtues of democracy? Or does its top-down nature show how non-democratic means are sometimes needed to achieve social goods?Required Reading:A sample of the Matt Yglesias tweets about European appliances."One Billion Americans," by Matt Yglesias (Amazon)."The Great Stagnation," by Tyler Cowen (Amazon).

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit wisdomofcrowds.liveThis week was a first for the podcast– we welcomed two guests, Michael Wear and Jane Coaston. Michael is a rare fish, an Evangelical Christian and a Democratic political strategist who worked as President Obama's director of faith outreach in the 2012 campaign, going on to lead Evangelical outreach for the Obama White House's faith based initiative. An article he recently wrote for his Substack, "This is How to End Abortion Politics as We've Known It," has sparked vigorous discussion among the online set. In it, Wear argues that what "is needed now is legislation which provides a national framework that would contain our abortion debate, even if it would also mean codifying the nation’s long-held consensus that abortion is not a social good, even if a majority also believe it necessary to (re)establish the right to have one."Jane Coaston, a New York Times opinion writer and host of "The Argument" podcast, thinks that Wear is mistaken. In her view, both sides see their position as absolute, and any compromise will be seen as an unacceptable betrayal of the cause. We decided to invite them both onto the pod, to hash it out and discuss the political fallout from the Dobbs decision.  In the full episode (for subscribers), the conversation shifted towards a discussion of first principles and political strategy. We asked Michael how he squared working for President Obama with his own pro-life position, and questioned Jane on whether she thought a "settlement" on abortion was even desirable, let alone possible.Will Republicans after the fall of Roe v. Wade be like the dog who caught the car, as Damir argues? Will Democrats be forced to moderate their strategy on abortion to meet voters where they are? Will either party be able to extricate itself from the demands of its activist class? And finally, we all debate the extent to which Democrats could, or should, have moderated their views on abortion over the past decade.Required Reading:- "This is How to End Abortion Politics as We've Known It," by Michael, on his Substack.- "Democrats Shouldn't be so Certain About Abortion," by Michael (The New York Times).- "How Will We Punish Women Who Have Abortions?" by Jane, (The New York Times).- "The Argument" episode discussing the Dobbs decision, with Ross Douthat and Michelle Goldberg (The New York Times).- "Making Abortion Illegal and Unthinkable," by Ryan T. Anderson and Alexandra Desanctis (National Review).- Kevin D. Williamson discussing his email exchange with Jane, in National Review's online blog.- "The Abortion Stories We Didn't Tell," by Rebecca Traister (New York Magazine).- The full transcript of 2016's third presidential debate (Politico).

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit wisdomofcrowds.liveThis week we sat down to debate America's greatness—or lack thereof. Somewhat to our surprise, we found a source of agreement between us: our belief in American exceptionalism, even if we have very different conceptions of the role of morality and "progress" in forging the American idea.Countries in Europe may have a more leisurely pace of life and higher levels of reported happiness, but is that really what Americans want? Should it be what they want? Central to all of this are the questions of the state, democracy, and the double-edged sword of meritocracy. If, contrary to popular belief, a certain degree of dysfunction is what makes American society so dynamic, are we better off being a "failed state" then having a strong, efficient state like in Norway, Denmark, or France?  In the full episode (for subscribers), we turned to the question of whether the main problem facing American democracy is Trump himself or Trumpism as a movement. If it's the latter, do intellectuals' dire warnings of the threat to democracy really matter, especially if Trumpism is all about resentment? Many American pundits compared the rise of Trump to the rise of Hitler, adding to their sense of urgency in "stopping" him. But, we ask, would a greater awareness of the dangers of Trump really have prevented his rise? Is it possible—or morally appropriate—to stop a criminal before the crime is committed?The debate over January 6 hinges at least in part on whether it qualified as an "attempted coup." If the coup had succeeded, would it have blocked Biden's transition to power—or was America's messy, dysfunctional democracy a protection against such an outcome?Required Reading:- "America is Great Precisely Because it's Not," by Shadi Hamid (Wisdom of Crowds).- "Why Live in America?" by Nick Burns on his Substack.- Damir's Twitter thread on America's supreme adaptability.- Damir retweeting Garry Kasparov on Europe's struggles with innovation.- Shadi's Twitter thread on humiliation, resentment, and Jon Stewart's decline.- William Galston on Tyler Cowen's Average is Over (The Wall Street Journal).- "How Life Became an Endless, Terrible, Competition" by Daniel Markovits (The Atlantic).- Shadi's infamous Atlantic piece from before the election.- Jason Stanley's Twitter.- Our episode with Bruno Macaes.- "Notes Towards a Dreampolitik," in The White Album, by Joan Didion.

Discover the triumph and sorrow of the gay experience in Washington DC, from the red scare to the closet opening, examining the impact of the national security state, progress in politics, and the lasting legacy of the gay rights movement.